Hi Eric

We may be talking at cross-purposes to some degree.

Whether or not the production/distribution of art works is “simulcral”, it is, I agree, a little like a casino, especially where visual art is concerned: one buys one’s ticket (painting etc) and one takes one’s chances. But so what in a sense? Nothing that happens, or can happen, in the market affects the intrinsic value of a work – its quality as art. If various wealthy individuals want to gamble on sharks in formaldehyde etc, let them (we can’t stop them anyway); the thing will still be what it is (in my view a waste of space). It’s no doubt true that money and advertising hype have a distorting effect in the field of visual art, and doubtless many mediocre artists (e.g. Hirst) have “succeeded” at the expense of better ones. But ‘twas ever thus, to some degree, and none of it affects the value of a work of art as art. Powerful art – if it manages to see the light of day – will still be powerful art and mediocre stuff will still be mediocre, no matter what the “casino” does.

As for the art museum, no doubt its purchases in the field of contemporary art are affected to some extent by what happens in the market (so it will buy Hirsts etc) but (a) fortunately the world of art is far bigger and far more interesting, than the little world of contemporary art (though one would hardly guess that from most modern aesthetics which often seems fixated on it) and (b) the dross will eventually be swept away into storerooms anyway.

As for Warhol, I think his importance has been hugely overrated (thank you Danto) and in the longer term he will be seen as a mere drop in the art history ocean.

DA